memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Agent 201
how is this person an augment? -- Captain MKB 19:33, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :In the Khan saga ( , , ), Seven mentions that human Aegis agents were augmented Humans removed from Earth thousands of years prior. They were agents, just like he was, therefore...you can figure it out from there. – AT2Howell 19:36, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Wow, that's a great explanation. Why don't you try adding this valid information to the article so that your category addition actually makes sense? Oh, and lose the attitude towards me, I'm sick of it. -- Captain MKB 19:45, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :Right, because, as king of the wiki, you ban people you're upset with. No really, I get it. – AT2Howell 20:06, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Do you even have a reason to be irrate with me anymore? This trend started about August of last year, and you just don't give up, do ya? Everyday, I make constructive edits to the wiki, and I get attitude from you. I talk to you as a person, and you give me attitude. I identify a vandal, and you give me attitude. Take a chill pill, dude. I don't know what got you all cranked up last year, but how about we get back to normal sometime soon? – AT2Howell 20:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :No, this goes back to the first time you ignored my constructive communication with you back in 2007, and that hasn't changed. Back then, I was genuinely trying to help you structure your articles better, you ignored me and continued to make substandard contributions. :Now, when I try to give you input, you give me flippant responses. You've actually gotten much less tolerable and still don't get what you've been doing wrong. :You come up with crazy ideas like calling T'Pau as Spock's grandmother. When I point out the very valid flaw in your logic, you dismiss my viewpoint like I'm nobody to you and say we should ask someone else. :You call me names. Like "king of the wiki", just because I want people's contributions to make sense, even when yours don't. :You didn't just identify a vandal, you ordered me to ban someone like you were "king of the wiki". Seems more like your problem than mine. -- Captain MKB 20:21, August 20, 2010 (UTC) I call you "king of the wiki" because of recent statements like: "You are getting close to getting me annoyed enough to think about banning -you-." And yeah, I value 8of5's input. He and I get into it sometimes, but we're still cool. Try it sometime. I illustrated a possibly implied connection. I got no response one way or another. No one came from outside the article and said, "Yeah, they mentioned that over in..." so I would have left it alone had you not gotten so upset. And, you'll note, I left it alone anyway. – AT2Howell 20:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :If we have to communicate, just answer me without being flippant. Stop seeking out my personal contact info. We should be fine from now on. -- Captain MKB 20:30, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Aaaanyway, on the original subject. I think we should be very careful about our terminology, do we have any source that states that any person who is genetically engineered becomes an Augment, or does that term refer specifically to particular group of persons and their relations from the Eugenics Wars? Does someone who has been "augmented" automatically become an "Augment"? --8of5 15:20, August 30, 2010 (UTC) :I noticed that under Superman we have a bit on "genetic supermen" linking back to Augments, and the Federation does seem to have a blanket policy when it comes to genetic manipulation. The first line of Augment sums it up pretty well: "Augment, in the general sense, is the designation given to a person or group that has been biologically altered to be physically and/or mentally superior to their base species." – AT2Howell 15:32, August 30, 2010 (UTC) Yes the augment article does define what the word augment means, but does it actually tell use what the term Augment in the Star Trek universe means? Am I right in thinking that "Augment" was not even used until the Enterprise episodes, and therefore a lot of the data in that article is taking what we know about genetic engineering in the Trekverse and assuming that all falls under what we now think of as Augments, when maybe we don’t have evidence to back up that assumption? --8of5 15:36, August 30, 2010 (UTC) :I was just looking at the Bashir page to see if there was any mention of him being the "first" augment allowed in Starfleet, but found nothing. If he wasn't the first, then Saavik definately fall into the Augment category. There are plenty of folks who were augmented, but I can find nothing which says only bad augments were Augments. Confusing, right? Gary Seven was augmented, but he wasn't an Augment (evil). Bashir was augmented, but he wasn't augmented (crazy) like the others he dealt with. Ethan Locken was augmented, but does his nature make him an Augment (evil)? The children of Ceti Alpha V were Augments (evil) who were then taken in by augmented people (not allowed in the Federation), so are they still Augments (evil)? And if only Augments (evil) were bad guys, then why were the people of Paragon Colony not allowed to join? Were the Augments (evil) of any different from the children of Ceti Alpha V? Too many questions if you ask me. – AT2Howell 15:46, August 30, 2010 (UTC) I am of the opinion that, unless there is a source that uses the term Augment to generally refer to genetically engineered persons that we should consider it as the name only for the genetically engineered persons specifically associated with the Eugneics Wars. So Khan and his clan, the other 20th century Eugenics warriors, the embryos that went on to cause problems in the 22nd century, and the various Augments form the Myriad Universe alternate timeline where Khan won. Everyone else should be detailed on the genetic engineering page and referred to as genetically engineered, not as being an Augment. --8of5 15:52, August 30, 2010 (UTC) :I agree, the terminology "Augment" as a proper name should only apply to Humans engineered by Human technology leading up to and following from the Eugenics wars. The term should be removed from individuals of other species that were genetically engineered (since there are different means and motives being used) and Humans engineered by other powers (like the Aegis, for like reasons). Perhaps the continuation of 22nd century/24th century augmented individuals could stay, as long as they are Human. I really never saw this technology as being like other species engineering in any way. -- Captain MKB 22:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)